FTC Consumer Protection Chief Makes Case For EU Data Privacy Cooperation
The FTC's consumer bureau director, Andrew Smith, said Wednesday at a U.S. Chamber summit in Washington that privacy shield renewal is 'a top priority for the Federal Trade Commission.'
October 24, 2018 at 02:54 PM
4 minute read
The Federal Trade Commission's consumer protection chief on Wednesday trumpeted the agency's efforts to uphold a data transfer pact between the European Union and U.S. government, as American officials pressed in Brussels to renew the agreement for a third year.
Andrew Smith, director of the FTC's bureau of consumer protection, pointed to the recent flurry of agency enforcement actions against U.S. companies accused of making false claims about their participation in the Privacy Shield agreement, a 2016 deal that allows data transfers from Europe to U.S. companies that pledge to comply with the framework's consumer protections.
While the framework is administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the FTC is tasked with ensuring that participating companies follow the Privacy Shield's data protection requirements—and that firms make accurate claims about their involvement in the program. Nearly 4,000 companies have self-certified their compliance with the framework's requirements, according to a database maintained by the International Trade Administration.
“It's an extremely important arrangement that Commerce and the [European Commission] have agreed to, and it supports hundreds of billions of dollars in transatlantic data flows. We at the FTC have an important role to play because we are the ones who are responsible for enforcing that Privacy Shield framework against companies that fail to adhere to it,” Smith said Wednesday at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce conference in Washington.
“So the renewal of that privacy shield framework is a top priority for the Federal Trade Commission and for me as the director of the bureau of consumer protection,” Smith said.
Smith's comments came a week after Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross met with European Justice Commissioner Věra Jourová in Brussels to discuss renewing the Privacy Shield accord. The agreement, which is undergoing its second annual review, has come under criticism from E.U. lawmakers who've urged the European Commission to suspend the accord until the United States fully meets its obligations.
Smith, a former partner at Covington & Burling, highlighted enforcement actions the FTC has taken against five companies within the last year related to the Privacy Shield agreement. Those actions, Smith said, were “in support of the U.S. argument for renewal.”
In late September, the FTC reached settlements with four companies accused of falsely claiming that they had certified under the Privacy Shield. One of the companies applied in 2017 for Privacy Shield certification but never completed the necessary process, the FTC alleged. The three others had been certified through the Commerce Department's process in 2016 but allowed their certifications to lapse. Nonetheless, the FTC alleged, the three companies' websites included statements that they were participating in the data transfer program.
Two of the companies—the data analytics firm VenPath and SmartStart, a provider of employment and background screening services—were also accused of failing to affirm to the U.S. Commerce Department that they would apply Privacy Shield protections to data they'd collected while participating in the program.
An earlier settlement, reached in July, resolved claims that ReadyTech Corp., a provider of online training services, had falsely claimed on its website that the company was “in the process of certifying that we comply with the U.S.-E.U. Privacy Shield Framework.” The FTC said the company had submitted an application to the Commerce Department in 2016 but did not complete the certification process.
FTC Chairman Joseph Simons traveled last week to Brussels, where he said the agency's “commitment to the support the Privacy Shield framework is unwavering” and vowed to carry on with aggressive enforcement.
“We will continue to take action against companies that fail to honor a substantive commitment to the Privacy Shield principles, as well as those that make false claims of participation in the framework,” Simons said.
Simons, a former antitrust partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, added that the FTC recently issued investigative demands to companies participating in the Privacy Shield agreement as part of the agency's “ongoing efforts to proactively monitor compliance.”
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250